There’s this little trick that cops in some Missouri towns, including one near me, have been known to employ. A half-mile before an exit ramp that goes to nowhere (like a county road with no nearby services), they’ll put up these official-looking signs on the highway. “Drug Checkpoint Ahead” or “Drug Dogs In Use.” CITE: I drove by just such a sign last Saturday. The idea is that some schlub sees that sign, freaks out, gets off the highway to turn around, and a cop is right there to start asking if he can search the car. Profit!
This lawyer says that it’s been ruled unconstitutional. If that’s the case, then how does it still go on? Does a court declaring a police practice unconstitutional mean that they can still do it, banking on the fact that most perps don’t know their rights and sure as hell aren’t going to cite Supreme Court cases at trial? Or does the court’s rule against this practice make it effectively illegal?
Doesn’t your cite say that having an actual checkpoint is illegal, not that the tactic you mention is illegal? FWIW, I’ve seen the same tactic employed in Hays County, Texas.
Edit, and by illegal, I mean unconstitutional. The difference between a checkpoint, where everyone or a random sample is targeted, vs your tactic, is that the motorists in your tactic are actively trying to avoid law enforcement. Which I believe is a piece of evidence leading towards their having something to hide, and maybe rising towards enough reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop.
I hate checkpoints (and the War on Some Drugs) FWIW, but I think the above is the logic used.
Correct. The checkpoints themselves are unconstitutional, but the ruse is not. I’m not sure that simply getting off the exit is reasonable suspicion for a stop, but there is nothing to prevent the officers from following you for a while and finding reasons for a pretext stop.
Also, out of staters who do not know where they are going will get off the exit, dump drugs, and get back on the interstate…all under the watchful eye of the local constabulary.
Here in Texas they don’t sashay around, if you are within 60 miles of the U.S./Mexican border you can be stopped and searched at any time, your 4th Amendment protections do not apply. Similarly, there are areas designated High Intensity Drug Trafficking Zones which include hundreds of miles of Interstate and U.S. highways in which you have no protection from search and detention. That’s why Willie is always gettin’ in trouble. And if you think this is the worst thing your .gov does…
The border patrol can stop anyone within 100 miles of an international border but it is supposed to be only to enforce immigration law. Of course if they happen to see a stash of drugs under the spare tire, they won’t ignore that…
But I don’t believe the police can stop people any time for any (drug) reason.
I don’t trust a lawyer who’s only cite is “the courts.” He could have thrown in a case name or something to make it look official.
The website is there to drum up business. It looks to me to be misleading. Yes it’s true that there is caselaw that limits the types of checkpoints that are allowed and how they can be conducted. There is no checkpoint. Putting up a sign has not been ruled unconstitutional.
As you know the only level of evidence needed for a stop is an articulable suspicion. I could see it being enough depending on the full circumstances. (It could also be real scketchy under certain circumstances) If they have the dog right there to ensure the stop is not extended to an unreasonable amount of time I don’t see the traffic stop as being unconstitutional.
IIRC the rule also applies within 100 miles of an international airport with customs. Who does that leave out?
Does it matter, the police can seize/steal anything valuable you have on the pretext that it looks like proceeds from crime, and then you can hire a lawyer and travel back to the locale it was seized to try to reclaim it. The Canadian government has issued a warning IIRC about the risks of carrying larger sums of money in some areas of the USA.
The article itself explains that as part of the “trick” is that they follow you until you commit a traffic violation. So I don’t think they’re claiming that exiting is reasonable suspicion.
Is following someone until they commit a violation constitutional? Sounds like harassment to me.
If staying away from places where police congregate is itself cause enough for you to be a suspect, then African Americans who have reason to distrust and avoid their local gendarmes have a major problem.
That’s the crux of the racial profiling debate. Follow someone long enough and you’ll find a reason to justify a stop. (of course, the cop can also just say you changed lanes without signaling and what can you do?).
Anyway, absent some unconstitutional motive (difficult to establish), I don’t see a reason a cop couldn’t follow you for as long as they want to see if you commit an infraction. There is no “right” not to have a police officer on your tail on a public road.
As far as I can tell it doesn’t, but I am not a Constitutional scholar and if it were as easy as “we can’t do that because the Constitution says so” we wouldn’t need the Supreme Court to interpret it. That’s why I ask the question.
I think the 4[sup]th[/sup] would cover it. People make mistakes: following them until they run slightly afoul of precise law amounts to unreasonable search, or should, under a reasonable SCotUS. I doubt there is precedent, though.
